Jump to content

Talk:We Didn't Start the Fire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

Parodies to be added

[edit]

FrancineLouise created a parody of we didn't start the fire which lists an incredible amount playstation song names featured both on newgrounds.com's front page receiving daily awards http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/406500 http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/479699 titled "& So We Love Playstation"

College Humor has "We didnt start the Flame War." Think it should be added?--114.77.223.5 (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both now added. JQF • Talk • Contribs 19:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a parody entitled "Here Comes Another Bubble" by The Richter Scales, the video for it is on Youtube --93.96.19.132 (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article isn't about the song's parodies, as evidenced by the reverts by other editors of listed parodies, and the comment within the article itself against listing parodies. I'll just say that the existence of parodies in general is indeed notable if backed by cites, but not their enumeration. So I've added a citation about parodies of WDSTF, and removed the direct link to the CollegeHumor video itself. --Lexein (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On The News Quiz on BBC, Series 99 Episode 2, Aired 2019-04-19, the host recapped the first round with: "This is the news that over a billion billion euros has been pledged to restore Notre Dame Cathedral after a fire ravaged the historic building. The arch bishop of Notre Dame insisted he didn't start the fire, adding 'it's always burning since the world's been turning. We didn't start the fire. No we didn't light it but we tried to fight it. Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnny ray.' He's gone mad, basically." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj71yhizPf4&t=268s Whitis (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the end of 1989, there was a news-commercial wrap-up of 1989 itself, to the tune of We Didn't Start the Fire. I don't remember if it was on a local station here in Florida, or on a national network. It included these two lines:

"Worries at the Super Bowl" and "Zsa Zsa made a courtroom scene".

Apparently that one is lost. (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.159.192.198 (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German Comedian Otto Waalkes had a huge hit with his parody called "Wir haben Grund zum feiern" (We have a reason to party), which features a bunch of alcoholic drinks. It was also covered by various other singers with Otto's lyrics: https://cover.info/de/song/Otto-Wir-haben-Grund-zum-Feiern Also the satirical show extra 3 did various parodies on that tune, including the G20-meeting, the soccer club FC Bayern München, part of a ficitonal sing-of between Obama and Putin, which includes this song etc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iTQYIYZBjM (as of 0:55), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-cdSBX4Ipg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtMrzhIa6zQ --2003:E4:BF06:729E:E425:7877:8691:EA5D (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and takeoffs

[edit]
  • We've gone around on this before, and the mention of derivations (more properly, take-offs) have uncontroversially been in the lead paragraph for a very long time. Please take a moment to understand WP:LEAD The lead does not merely summarize the topic, it summarizes the article. Quoting: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." This means summarizing the various sections present in the article. Quoting: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." This means, simply enough, that if no mention of the derivations section is present in the lead, it is an incomplete lead section which cannot stand alone as a concise overview of the article.
  • The 2nd paragraph summarizes nothing that exists elsewhere in the article, and is unsourced original research. So I removed it.

--Lexein (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PaulGS that the fact that the Billy Joel song has been parodied (or referenced by other songs) is not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lede. And that's because it's trivia. The WP:LEAD outlines that the lede should summarize important information in the article. Now, I'll admit that I've seen a lot of Wikipedia articles that include sections with trivia. But to mention that trivia in the lede, I think, is inappropriate and definitely not encyclopedic.Jpcohen (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The qualitative criterion "important" does not override the definition of the lead, in which the quantitative: "summarize the article" is the key point. Dismissing an entire section of the article is inappropriate, and transparent WP:UNDUE de-emphasis of a section already placed far down the article, even though you personally don't like it. You both are selectively reading the guideline to suit your shared bias against having the lead paragraph summarize the article as it is written, in favor of what you prefer to see in the lead. --Lexein (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That the lead should emphasize an article's "most important" aspects/points is mentioned in both the first and second paragraphs of the guideline that you yourself are citing. You can't just write those words off as modifiers that carry no weight. I am not suggesting that the trivia section of this article (and that's what I consider the section on parodies/references/knockoffs to be) ought to be removed. But if we can agree that it is a trivia section, trivia is, by definition, not important. This is why I object to mentioning the knockoffs/parodies in the lead. I don't believe this shows any personal bias against the trivia section on my part. If I was against having that section in the article, I would be recommending its removal. And I'm not. And since PaulGS agrees with me on this, it's clear that this is not just my judgement. Many Wikipedia articles have similar trivia sections in them. But because these sections are trivial, I don't believe that they ought to be mentioned in the lead of any article (where "important" introductory information on any given topic belongs). Hopefully other editors will weight in on this dispute so we can settle the matter.Jpcohen (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

derivative works

[edit]

One of the political parties in India purchased the rights to this song and made a derivative of it as part of their campaign for the 2014 parliamentary elections. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2516506/Mulayam-buys-rights-Billy-Joel-song--writes-HIMSELF.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awDYK97PQz0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.42.30 (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary parenthetical aside.

[edit]

This aside in the "Of Note" section is unnecessary: "(by a not entirely accurate lyric referring only to England, rather than Great Britain)" England got a new queen--that is entirely accurate. It is also accurate to say that the UK got a new Queen, as well as every Commonwealth Realm, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Channel Islands, etc. but not necessary. Additionally, the aside is itself incorrect as the entity QE is most known for ruling is called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"--not just Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.26.53 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the entire phrase. Problem solved. Jedzz (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Didn%27t_Start_the_Fire#Year-end_charts

Something's wrong with the sorting. I don't know how to put it into words. (I'm not really good with that kind of thing.) You'll see it when you click the "Position" arrow. JMtB03 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Of note"

[edit]

Per WP:NOT, we should avoid lists of miscellaneous information like this unless the facts can be contextualized using reliable secondary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instrument(s) played by Joel in the song

[edit]

Billy Joel plays guitar in live versions of the song but in Storm Front (album)#Band personnel guitar isn't listed an instrument he played on the album. It says that he played piano, Hammond organ, clavinet, synthesizer, harpsichord, accordion and percussion on the album. Does anyone know what instrument(s) he played in the studio recording?

Red China

[edit]

Why is this not wikilinked? There's a page called Red China. Should I go fix it?

"Red China" leads to a disambiguation page that leads back to "China", which was already linked later in the entry, in association with more descriptive text ("People's Republic of China"). I removed the link to "H-Bomb" for a similar reason.Jedzz (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parody that Would Be Hard to Describe in This Article

[edit]

I remember seeing a video/movie in middle school about recycling that started with a parody of this song called "We Didn't Start the Landfill." The movie was taped/released in 1990. Who knows the name of the movie? Cbsteffen (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on We Didn't Start the Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Censor/censure

[edit]

In the 1963 section, it says that the Nation of Islam "censor[ed]" Malcolm X. Is this a misspelling of "censure", or did they actually censor him? --Zzedar (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Malcom X article, it should be “censured”. Good catchJedzz (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"JFK blown away (What else do I have to say?):"

[edit]

I removed "(What else do I have to say?)" from the "JFK blown away" bullet point, because it is not necessarily referring to the JFK assassination, and is simply one of several transitions to the chorus. Dtwedt (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music video section

[edit]

The music video section says the music video depicts a single family over the decades with redecorations of the kitchen. But according to this blog post with interviews of the different women in the video, it's a different family in each decade kitchen with the mothers played by different women. The blog post article is recommended by the official Billy Joel website here, so it would seem to be accurate in its information, ie not made up. Also if you watch the video - the 1950's family has a son while the 1960's/70's family has a daughter. Also it might be of interest to note that Marlee Matlin played the 1960's/70's family's daughter. Libertybison (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should specify U-2 is not U2

[edit]

I believe the entry for U-2 should specify that this is not U2 (the band). There are several reasons for this. First, they sound exactly the same, so no distinction there. Second, the song lists many different historical events and musical groups, so the reference could be to either. The disambiguation is by chronological order, but one was in 1960 and one in 1976 (founded). For any reader less than 45 years old, both of these happened before they were born, and the dates (even rough dates) may not be common knowledge. Finally, a number of song lyric sites get this wrong, showing U2 instead of U-2, demonstrating that this is a common mistake. Examples include Musixmatch, the default lyrics shown by Google. So a short explanation is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer (talk • contribs) 02:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LouScheffer: this generally isn't how Wikipedia presents information - if a reliable source could be found to show that this is a misconception, it would be a reasonable footnote, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with this. Wikipedia tries to reduce confusion when possible, just not present one view. There is a macro Template:Distinguish that says "not be be confused with" and is used more the 79,000 times in Wikipedia. This is also seen is disambiguation pages such as U2 (disambiguation), which explicitly names what the user might mean from a common name. And here is a reliable source that also felt disambiguation was necessary: BILLY JOEL'S HIT SONG KINDLES FIRE OF LEARNING, BUT WHO WILL FAN THE FLAMES?. The goal of Wikipedia is to help the reader, and a short note that helps this effort doesn't hurt, and may help.LouScheffer (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The item literally says “An American U-2 spy plane”, so no one reading this article is going to think Joel might be talking about a rock band after reading that.

From the song, the correct “U-2” is strongly implied from the chronological context; when Joel sings the lyric, he’s in the 60’s, not the 70’s (and U2 the band didn’t make it really big until the early- to mid- 80’s). As Elli says, if it’s a misconception people have had from listening to the song, it’s on you to find and provide a source showing that it’s a common misconception. Otherwise, it’s just your own speculation. Not to mention that several items (like “Vaccine”, “Sugar Ray” and all the musicals) would need to have similar notes, because those could be confused too. Jedzz (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Joel himself, commenting on his own song, notes this is a common misconception: "You talk to these kids and [...] They think the '50s was all Ozzie and Harriet. They think U2 is a rock group and not (a spy plane)." from BILLY JOEL STILL INVITES CRITICS TO TAKE THEIR BEST SHOTS and "“I sing ‘U-2' and a lot of people say, ‘I didn’t know that band was out in 1960,’ ” Joel says. “I have to tell them it was the spy plane that wrecked the peace conference between Khrushchev and Eisenhower.”, from Hit Confuses Younger Fans: Joel. The same quote is mentioned in this Washington Post article. In yet another interview he states "Now, a lot of people come say gee I didn’t know the band was around in 1960. I said I don’t mean the band I mean the spy plane.", from a message to teachers. In addition, there are a number of independent sources that felt it necessary to specify the song did not refer to U2 the band. BILLY JOEL'S HIT SONG KINDLES FIRE OF LEARNING, BUT WHO WILL FAN THE FLAMES?, An article bout Doris Days' death. Here's a U2 discussion board that is definitely confused. Here where it is presented in a trivia question. Here's a disambiguation in the comic book context. Here's a review of the containing album Storm Front. In short it's a pretty common misconception, and well worth 4 words to help sort out. LouScheffer (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources you have presented do make it clear that it's due weight to include some sort of note. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which Rockefeller?

[edit]

There are lots of famous Rockefellers, and a number of them made headlines in 1953 (The New York Times, for 1953, has more than 90 articles mentioning Rockefeller.) Nelson Rockefeller went into national politics, and John D. Rockefeller III made headline for various charity activities (in particular, a $25 million grant for Colonial Williamsburg, an enormous amount at the time). Here are some independent sources that discuss this: Rockefeller(1953), All 59 people name-dropped in Billy Joel’s ‘We Didn’t Start the Fire’: Where are they now? and #FlashBack1989: Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start The Fire” is the Number One Song in the USA. Here's some that think it's Nelson and not Winthrop: Backstory: Billy Joel. We Didn’t Start the Fire, “We Didn’t Start the Fire It Was Always Burning” – 10 Facts About Billy Joel’s Hit Song and We Didn't Start The Fire. Here's a headline with John D. Rockefeller III: Rockefeller in Williamsburg 1953 (this one is more recent, but there are lots of articles about this in 1953, such as this one from the NYT). As far as I know, Billy Joel has never specified which one (or more than one) he meant. LouScheffer (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is a short reference to the meaning of each item appropriate?

[edit]

An editor believes the section that explains each reference is inappropriate. I disagree - especially for younger (or non-American) listeners, many of the references will not be self-evident. A one line explanation is about the right amount. Other opinions? LouScheffer (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a short explanation is appropriate, the song is uniquely stuffed full of notable references and a concise note for each with links benefits a proper understanding of the article's subject. Keep it in. Captainllama (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the hill I want to die on, but my removal was based on the lack of WP:SECONDARY sources listing the lyric terms item by item. I looked around and saw some media reports of teachers using this song as a way to choose history lessons, but they did not make a list of historic items like we have here. Usually, whenever we make a list on Wikipedia, there should be some published version of the list, or at least part of the list. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised to hear that a list article on Wikipedia requires a corresponding independent list or two, perhaps that is so but never mind, this is not "a list". Other works of music; fiction; poems; films; creative items generally, are afforded a synopsis of what the work is about or represents, and are regarded as their own source without recourse to secondary sources. This example happens to carry an extraordinary weight of references, so the synopsis is necessarily correspondingly hefty - just as film plots carry a guideline word limit which may be surpassed for outlying examples of particularly convoluted or detail-dense films. "This list [sic] is crazy excessive" rightly, only inasmuch as the subject is "crazy excessive". Captainllama (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, actually - notability guidelines like WP:LISTN only apply to article topics, not content in articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there's any way it can be rationalized to have the list present elsewhere, say under the heading of "We Didn't Start The Fire (Lyrics)" because I was personally enraptured by exploring the other articles with the ease of perusing through the list of links previously on this page. I understand the concern regarding history lessons, but feel that using something as attention-grabbing as a song was likely a key element to why teachers (and independent learners like myself) might have gravitated to the list and explored history one article at a time. 24.248.117.102 (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it pretty clearly is appropriate here, though ideally it would, well, have better sourcing. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate, a creative work is its own source; there is no better source. Captainllama (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason that the list is useful to the reader is that the terms may be hard to look up (in Wikipedia and other sources) if the spelling is not obvious. For example, someone who hears 'Syngman Rhee' and wants to see why he was included first has to figure out the spelling before they can look him up. The short descriptions of the terms helps here. LouScheffer (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you want a line-by-line reading, go to Genius. This is trivia, with a lack of secondary sourcing--and that lack of sourcing also indicates that really it does nto matter. Captainllama, "a creative work is its own source"--maybe, but that doesnt' mean that such content, derived from the original, is automatically noteworthy. And I'll remind you that interpretation of a primary/creative source is a matter for secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going to Genius does not help in many cases. How would you look up "California baseball" to see what was meant? Also some are ambiguous ("Rockefeller", "U2") and a lyric site won't help with that. And there are many reputable sources that include a list of meanings such as this or this one from Britannica. LouScheffer (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--I added one of those links to the EL section. For an encyclopedia, it's still excessive of course. As for "California baseball"--we are not Google. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for keeping is that this list is better (for the reader) than any of the lists we might refer to. It's hyperlinked for almost all topics mentions, plus has references for places where Billy Joel himself has offered an opinion. (Rockefeller and U-2, for example). LouScheffer (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As another suggestion, we could make this the very last section. Then the folks who are not interested would not need to skip past it. LouScheffer (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we keep descriptions of each item?

[edit]

Only a few editors have weighed in on whether or not to keep the descriptions of each item. I'm hoping a few more will reply here, so we can see if there is any consensus. Just looking for a keep or delete, with a one sentence justification, if you want.

Keep. List is useful for readers. LouScheffer (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my previous comments on the subject. Maybe this should be converted to a formal RfC though, for a clearer consensus? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and combine it with the "Historical Events Referenced" section too for good measure - still at the end maybe to appease those who object to it. 2.31.178.128 (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1949

[edit]

The song starts from 1949 onward because Billy Joel was born in 1949 not 1948. The song chronicles world events throughout his life. Harry Truman was president when he was born and Doris Day was one of the biggest actresses at the time of his birth. 98.214.201.41 (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sections?

[edit]

Why dont we merge the events refrenced and event list into one subsection, I dont see why having them so far away from each other makes it easier to read or having two areas that basically only do half the job of each. Z4d0k NZ (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was a compromise (see the section "Is a short reference to the meaning of each item appropriate?" just above). Some editors did not want any list at all. The compromise was to put it at the end where you don't have to scroll through a fairly long section to get to the other sections of the article. LouScheffer (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks for the explanation, its greatly appreciated and makes sense Z4d0k NZ (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pet Names for Genitalia" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pet Names for Genitalia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28#Pet Names for Genitalia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 21:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wii Didn't Start the Fire" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Wii Didn't Start the Fire and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28#The Wii Didn't Start the Fire until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 22:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Catcher in the Rye

[edit]

This famous and widely acclaimed book is described as “a controversial novel”. This is bizarre since it is only controversial in a few US states that in any case promote censorship of books on some rather old-fashioned grounds. Furthermore it is unlikely Joel put it the song because of this so-called controversy. 92.16.85.110 (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge two sections?

[edit]

Does "historical events referenced" need to be separate to "events mentioned"? The former section has a short paragraph, a quotation, and a link to the latter section. I think this can be included in the latter section. Is there any reason to keep it separate? 82.32.241.130 (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it seems strange and unnecessary to me too, though there is an explanation above about why it was done. Despite that, I still think it would be better to combine those 2 sections. 2.31.178.128 (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy between the lede and the "Events mentioned" section

[edit]

The lede states that the song lists "... events between 1949 (the year of Joel's birth) and 1989...".

However the events listed in the "Events mentioned" section start from 1948.

They can't both be correct. The question is whether if it's the lede or if it's the "Events mentioned" section that should be updated to be consist with the other. 70.29.86.93 (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely 1948 as that was the year of the presidential election and the first Doris Day movie. Fixed the lede. LouScheffer (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal from We Didn't Start the Fire (Fall Out Boy song) to here

[edit]

See Talk:We_Didn't_Start_the_Fire_(Fall_Out_Boy_song)#Merge_proposal. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Noting that I've removed the list of events for copyright reasons. It contained most of the song's lyrics (conveniently boldfaced), making that an overquote of the lyrics; and it copied all of a list with subjective membership criteria (viz. events that Billy Joel thinks are notable), which is copyright violation for the same reason that a copy of a "top 100 films of all time" list is. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found myself on this page curious to educate myself on the various events referenced. This seems like a perfect job for Wikipedia. What if they were listed by their primary Wikipedia page name (e.g., Assassination of John F. Kennedy rather than “J.F.K.: blown away (what else do I have to say?)”) Additionally they could be put in chronological or alphabetical order rather than song order.
It must be that the set of items isn’t copyrightable, right? The order and the phrasing: maybe… but the staying power of this song suggests that linking this list to Wikipedia pages is particularly important for this song. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can a better solution than deletion be found for this section?

[edit]

I came to this page for the very information found in this section and had to go the the history page to find it.

This song is made up of names of people and places in a rhyming format that is, no doubt, copyrightable. Would it be acceptable to list the people and places and the reason that they are important in *alphabetical* order. This would break the format of the song yet still provide the information I suspect people are looking for on this page.

Two other issues:

  • the link to the deleted section has been left in place.
  • if the original text breaches copyright, how does the text available in the history NOT breach copyright? Does Wikipedia have the ability to truly delete entries so no-one can see it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5808:9a3c:0:b08f:48a4:94:33a6 (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics copyright angle could be resolved by removing verbatim references in such cases where the phrase used in the song isn't a common name for the event (e.g. "trouble in the Suez"). I don't think that would resolve the list copyright issue, though, nor would alphabetizing. "Rolling Stone's top 100 albums of the 2010s, alphabetized" would probably still be a copyright violation; thus likewise this. What would work is explaining a select subset, based on which lines are analyzed the most in independent reliable sources. We could also say "Several sources have published line-by-line explanations of the song" and link to those, for people who are looking for that. (We are not allowed to link to copyright violations, but in this case any such source likely has a solid fair use claim; the issue is that we are quite conservative about fair use as a matter of internal policy.)
As to the historical revisions, yes, they should probably be deleted per WP:RD1. It's just a bit of a chore to find which, and there's some admin discretion involved. @Primefac: Since you have the current record for largest copyvio revdel, are you up to taking a look? It's going to be most of the history going back, with some gaps, to the first revision. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The oldest versions are most definitely a copyvio (since they're just piped links of the lyrics) and I have hidden them. Will keep an eye on this discussion and start perusing through some of the more recent history as I suspect there will be more to RD1. Primefac (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a copyvio at all. BJ's original song is a list song, in this case a list of events. A list of events, of facts, cannot be copyrighted and to which WP:FUC does not apply. Copyright would apply to entire verses and sentences, of course; but that is not what we are doing here. Where perhaps we might intrude into the grey is where we quoted portions of actual lyrics ("England's got a new queen", "JFK blown away" etc). Still, they can easily be tightened to discussing the event itself (1952 coronation, Assassination of JFK, etc). WP:LISTN does not apply as the article is about a song, and RS do not have to have discussed the events as a body. Our article on 'Comfortably Numb', for example, does not have to discuss the efficacy of taking Ketamine just because someone wrote a song about it!). And as for BJ's choice of what to discuss in his own song being a copyright violation; it's his song. I guess he can discuss what he likes. We just report that. SN54129 17:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're overlooking WP:TOP100 here, Serial. A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner. It seems like you agree that Billy Joel selected the entries in this list of notable 20th-century events based on what he subjectively feels are important. That tends toward this being a copyright violation, not against it. Sure, the individual entries in the list are factual, but that's true of basically all lists. The selection of the events is opinion-based and thus copyrighted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article isn't a list of events. It's a list of explanations of what many obscure references mean, each of which is a distinct from the lyric itself. If anything the issue here is that it's origional work! The idea it infiringes the origional copyright is absurd. 86.7.189.33 (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding on top of a copyright violation doesn't make it not a copyright violation. If I take Pitchfork's list of the 100 best albums of the 2010s, and copy the whole thing but for each one add some information about the album that isn't present in Pitchfork's list, that is still a copyright violation.
    That said, I do agree there's a separate WP:OR issue, although most/all of these meanings can probably be found in reliable sources, and many are arguably WP:SKYISBLUE material. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are reliable sources that do the same thing this list did: [1] [2]. If we were to include this list, it would not be hard to have it fully-cited. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If nothing else, these two sources (which are conceptually identical to the disputed section) imply these two organizations did not believe there is a copyright problem (or it never occurred to them, which seems unlikely in the case of Britannica). LouScheffer (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible that such posts are permissible under fair use. However, Wikipedia holds itself to a higher standard than legally required regarding fair use. You may also overestimate how much most sources care about copyright compliance for an individual article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: The point is that they are sources that discuss BJ's selection of events as a body. So now everything can be restored, fully sourced, in the knowledge that the Top 100 has nothing to do with it, OR has nothing to do with it, and that it is a list of uncopyrightable events (whatever the anon above thinks) in a song, that are the subject of a Wikipedia article, despite all the increasingly Byzantine references to multiple, distant P&Gs. Cheers, SN54129 12:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, other sources quoting all of a copyrightable list does not make it not-copyrightable. They certainly count toward WP:DUE in terms of whether we should mention some of the events, but they do not mean that "everything can be restored". These are not "distant P&Gs". These are core requirements for making sure we follow both copyright law and our community-enacted copyright policy. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin, FTR, and just to indulge me, who owns the copyright to JFK's assassination? SN54129 16:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one. No individual event in the song is copyrighted. The creative selection of events, together, is copyrighted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the worst edit I have ever seen. I have never commented on a talk page, but I have to say this is a travesty. Not only was this article well written and well formated, it was one of the best to read through with over a hundred links to historical events to educate. This article is also old as dirt and only had minor edits for a long time until you, Tamzin, wiped it off the face of the Earth because of copyright arguments that you are completely wrong about. Saying it is lyrics because there is a list of words indicating the historical events is the same logic patent trolls use to sue people, and is equivalent to saying because the Beatles made a song called "Help", they now own that word and no one can EVER use it without paying royalties. It's ludicrous. The list of events was just that: Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, followed by an explanation. The song lyrics are NOT: Harry Truman wins the 1948 United States presidential election following a partial term after the Death of Franklin D Roosevelt. There is a clear difference so, you are in the wrong here.
    However the much most disturbing part is you just blanked the events section without even asking first. Just deleted 19,000 kb of historical data which now, 99.99% of users will never see again. You negatively impacted this site, and people's chance to educate themselves in a very real way. No discussion on the talk page, just delete. The article is also mysteriously locked, perhaps by you, so no one can bring that section back. To me this seems like everyone is against you and rather than admit you made a mistake, you doubled down and said you are right, leveraging your seniority to make a final decision. This sets an extremely dangerous precedence. You didn't like this section, so it's gone and no one can reverse it because you said so. What if it wasn't for a song? What if it was for a controversial historical event pr person? If you don'tblike what it says are you going to erase it and claim copyright? No one here believes that string you are pulling.
    In my opinion, this shows extremely questionable judgement, and while I am not a contributer, I am a heavy user and have donated to wikimedia for over ten years, and I strongly suggest you leave this site and do not come back. Wikipedia does not need editors like you, I'm sorry. 2605:59C8:30C8:4F00:289E:15DA:1B00:4DF8 (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Weighing in here, to say I rarely edit or comment, but the treatment of this is a total disaster. I assume I am right in believing that there has not been any official copyright takedown/cease and desist from the copyright owner regarding this? Unless that is the case (which would be cause for a discussion) this edit is truly an awful decision and I agree with everything written by the prior poster.
    I, also as a financial contributor to the project, do not want overzealous editors like this on the platform. The fact this historically important context of this song has been eliminated from an encyclopaedia like this on the actions of one person is disgusting, and hugely disappointing.
    What a absolute disaster. Deggle (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of proactive removal of copyright content is to avoid being sued in the first place. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is older than dirt and no one has ever even come close to complaining, let alone filing suit. There are 10,000 different lyric sites out there just copy pasting the lyrics. Let the patent trolls deal with them. Restore the section. The original editor has already left the site, possibly related to this edit (and other edits) and the backlash it caused. Also by your logic, why even have wikipedia at all if every piece of information can be subpoenaed? Why even create anything? Just put the section back and if anyone that owns the rights complains, then take it down and start a discussion. Thst is unlikely to happen, based on how long the section with lyrics was there and how many views it had. You are making an honest and small mistake in judgment into an ethical debate like it's Sophie's choice or something. It's just song lyrics. Put it back. 2600:1010:B12D:9CCE:F9C4:CA11:B2A3:773A (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 10,000 different lyric sites out there just copy pasting the lyrics So go to one of them for the lyrics. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are lyric sites, not lists of historical references. 2600:1010:B144:2577:D1C5:E544:9295:6090 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No thoughts on that? Mmmkay. I feel heard. 2600:1010:B193:DAE9:FC8F:DE0C:625C:6FC4 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So disappointing to see this is still being debated and hasn't been returned. This site serves as a source of information and an archive, and the context and article links for further detail of the events included in these lyrics served as a valuable historic record.
    Editors are failing in the mission of Wikipedia by allowing this to be lost, information that only grows more important as time passes. Those arguing against this, especially given there has been no external pressure from copyright owners, are really missing the point and letting us all down. I worry overzealous editors could be undermining other parts of Wikipedia and it's such a shame given the great value that's been built here. Deggle (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately no mods care about anything but their own egos and legacy. 2600:1010:B14B:1E10:D020:ECC5:6496:BBBF (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WT:CP notified. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


How about the following:

[edit]

The following is a list of links to articles about events and people referenced in the song:

Either give the information or remove the section entirely.

[edit]

If we are going to remove the list then completely remove the "Historical events mentioned" section, considering it now holds very little information about the historical events mentioned. PeterGregson11 (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout Boy Cover/Remake/Update

[edit]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/fall-out-boy-we-didnt-start-the-fire.html 50.232.40.61 (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer Z , Perfect Day

[edit]

Fischer Z released "Perfect Day" in 1987, which has a similar rhythmic and lyrics style to this work. Coincidence possibly. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyAcK3Jahn8 2003:C6:7F01:C600:B8F1:3418:357B:E8B1 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"China's under martial law" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect China's under martial law has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 22 § China's under martial law until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"British politician sex" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect British politician sex has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 22 § British politician sex until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Didn't Start the Fire is a song, not a compilation

[edit]

WP:TOP100, WP:TOPTEN, and WP:CIL would not apply to this article. The law is 17 U.S.C. § 102, and the cases that inform those Wikipedia policies and essays are Feist v. Rural (1991), Key v. Chinatown (2nd Cir. 1991), and CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports (2d Cir. 1994). These cases all involved compilations, not songs, so the copyrightable elements are different. These elements were established in Feist v. Rural as the following: originality, selection and arrangement, compilation as a whole, creative indexing or organization. The court stated, "The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws."

As We Didn't Start the Fire is a song, not a compilation, different elements are used to establish substantial similarity under copyright law. As affirmed in cases like Williams v. Gaye (9th Cir. 2018), the elements considered for songs include melody, harmony, rhythm, instrumentation, and lyrics. Unlike compilations, there is no emphasis on "selection or arrangement" or "organization" because songs involve a different creative medium. Since the first four elements (melody, harmony, rhythm, and instrumentation) are not in question in this discussion, the focus here would primarily be on the lyrics of the song.

The verses of We Didn't Start the Fire consist primarily of factual events, so we are free to discuss those events in any analysis of the song. We can look to Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group Inc. (2d Cir. 1998) for enlightenment: "We have stated that 'substantial similarity' requires that the copying [be] quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to support the legal conclusion that infringement (actionable copying) has occurred." So long as the article does not copy a substantial amount of the lyrics of the song, there is no copyright infringement using a quantitative examination. The qualitative examination is defined in Clonus Associates v. Dreamworks, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2005), which says "The qualitative component concerns the copying of expression, rather than ideas, facts, works in the public domain, or any other non-protectable elements." The factual historical events covered in the song are non-protectable elements, so, per Feist, "No matter how original the format ... the facts themselves do not become original through association."

As they've been RevDel'd, I don't have access to the previous versions of this article, so I can't speak to the level of infringement. I'm sure any versions that simply overquote the lyrics with Wikilinks fall solidly into the realm of copyright infringement. But, if this article were to simply list the historical events in order, using the corresponding Wikipedia title and avoiding any creative expressions from the lyrics, there is no infringement. For example, "Trouble in the Suez" becomes Suez Crisis, and "Brooklyn's got a winning team" becomes 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers season. We could use both the Far Out Magazine article and the Britannica article as a guide to link to the appropriate topic and specific year. If we were to be particularly ambitious we could even link to the correct section of a given article. "Satayana goodbye" becomes "George Santayana," or "Brando" becomes "Marlon Brando."

I'm happy to do this myself, I just don't want to sink a bunch of time into this if it's only going to get immediately reverted, or worse, get me reported for some fool reason! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the mods have moved on and washed their hands of this so the odds of getting that section back are pretty much nothing. Better start copying your favorite articles to word on your hard drive now, because it's only a matter of time before every historical article is erased because someone might claim copyright on it. 2600:1010:B193:DAE9:FC8F:DE0C:625C:6FC4 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We_Didn%27t_Start_the_Fire&oldid=1260630979"